The Milgram Experiment of Trading: Obeying Authority in Market Manipulation

Psychological Foundations of Compliance in Economic Systems

In the intricate trading environment of Path of Exile 2 players engage in a complex ecosystem where item prices fluctuate based on supply demand and social perception. Yet beneath this apparent free market lies a subtle psychological undercurrent drawn from one of the most famous behavioral studies of the twentieth century. The Milgram Experiment conducted in 1961 demonstrated how ordinary individuals could be led to perform actions they believed to be harmful simply by following instructions from an authority figure. In the context of POE 2 trading this concept takes on new relevance as influential voices within the community guide and manipulate player decisions often with significant economic consequences. The Milgram Experiment of Trading becomes a metaphor for how authority can override personal judgment in digital marketplaces.

Influencers as Digital Authority Figures

Streamers high-profile traders and popular community members often function as perceived authorities within the POE economy. When such figures make public statements about the rising value of an orb or predict a shift in meta-game mechanics many players act immediately on that information. These actions are not necessarily based on personal analysis but on the credibility and social capital of the source. Just as participants in the original Milgram Experiment deferred to the perceived authority of the lab-coated experimenter players in POE 2 may abandon skepticism and engage in trades or investments solely because a trusted figure suggested it. This deference creates a powerful feedback loop where belief in authority drives market shifts that then appear to validate the original prediction.

Market Bubbles and Herd Behavior

Authority-driven trading frequently leads to speculative bubbles where the price of an item or currency becomes inflated beyond its actual utility. When a major voice claims that a specific orb will surge in value due to an upcoming patch or new build synergy players rush to acquire it. This mass movement mimics herd behavior where the fear of missing out combines with trust in authority to override critical thought. The longer the hype is sustained the more it feels like consensus even as the fundamentals may not justify the price increase. Eventually the bubble bursts leaving late participants at a loss. This cycle mirrors the emotional conflict observed in Milgram’s subjects who hesitated but ultimately continued shocking the learner due to perceived obligation to authority.

Social Pressure and the Illusion of Independent Choice

In the decentralized trading system of POE 2 market manipulation does not require formal commands. It thrives on suggestion indirect influence and community dynamics. Players frequently cite what others are doing rather than what they themselves have calculated as justification for their actions. This creates a collective illusion of independent decision-making when in fact many are reacting to the same authoritative cue. Forums and trade discords amplify this effect turning isolated opinions into dominant narratives. When a respected trader posts a list of items to stockpile before a league start others may follow without verifying the rationale treating the list as instruction rather than speculation. The line between recommendation and command becomes blurred and obedience is framed as strategy.

Ethical Implications of Influence and Control

While many trading authorities in POE 2 act with good intentions the potential for exploitation remains high. Some players intentionally spread misinformation to manipulate prices for personal gain. They may create the illusion of scarcity or inflate demand through coordinated buys then dump the item once the price peaks. Those who trusted the authority figure are left with devalued assets and a sense of betrayal. This dynamic echoes the ethical dilemmas of the Milgram Experiment where obedience led to harm and raises important questions about responsibility within player-driven economies. The tension between trust and autonomy continues to shape how market information is shared and acted upon in Wraeclast.